On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:48:12AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> In the current release, I left ctljack.c as is before the integration
> with jack.c simply because of different use-cases I faced: the
> input-jack provides the multiple switches for a single jack while the
> current ctljack.c provides only a boolean. Although the ctljack can
> provide an enum instead of a boolean for representing a similar model,
> I wanted to get the global overlook and a consensus at first.
That's not the case with the standard jack stuff at all - it's not using
any enumerations. Everything that's grouped together is bitfields, it's
just a set of booleans all the way up to userspace.
> Meanwhile, the boolean implementation is enough for most of PC
> (especially HD-audio) stuff and the ctljack implementation was
> demanded. Thus I decided to merge the branch for 3.2.
So are they just booleans, and is there a naming standard for the
controls? I've never seen any clear description of the semantics
and I'd been assuming from the fact that all this had been done
outside the standard infrastructure that there was some deep HDA
specificness in the current somewhere but it's not sounding that
way.
> Definitely the integration work is necessary and foreseen. The
> biggest problem my workload for other tasks.
TBH it looks like it'd have been less work to start off in the core -
all the hooks were already in the drivers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20120206/d296088c/attachment.sig